get_finance_report

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the availability delay (30-45 days) and the output format (structured rows). It does not cover authentication details or rate limits, but for a read-only operation the transparency is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise at about 100 words, with no superfluous sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds necessary context. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., using bullet points) but is clear and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 5 parameters (4 required) and no output schema, the description covers all key aspects: finding vendor number, region codes, date format, report type meanings, and availability delay. It hints at output as 'structured rows' but lacks specifics on columns, which is a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining where to find the vendor number, providing region code examples, specifying the date format, and clarifying the difference between report types. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool downloads and parses a finance report from App Store Connect, returning structured rows. It mentions specific report types and region codes, distinguishing it from siblings like get_sales_report.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on how to find the vendor number, the format for regionCode and reportDate, and when reports are available. It also clarifies which reportType to use for different needs (FINANCIAL vs FINANCE_DETAIL). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.